Download Draft minutes - European Higher Education Area

INFORMATION AND PROMOTION NETWORK SUB-WG 3 MEETING, EXPERT
ROUND TABLE
Austrian Agency for International Cooperation in Education and Research (OeAD) Headquarters,
Vienna, 17 January 2011, 1030-1715
DRAFT MINUTES
Participants
1
Name
Alessandra Gallerano
Country/Organisation
Erasmus Mundus Students and Alumni Association (EMA)
2
3
Alexandru Pop
Barbara Weitgruber
Bologna Secretariat
Frm. Chair BFUG WG International Openness
4
Birgit Galler
Germany, BFUG WG Mobility
5
David Baldinger
6
Eva Egron Polak
Austrian Agency for International Cooperation in Education and
Research (OeAD)
International Association of Universities (IAU)
7
8
Heli Aru
Hubert Dürrstein
9
Irene Jansen
Estonian Ministry of Education and Research
Austrian Agency for International Cooperation in Education and
Research (OeAD)
German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
10
Irina Lungu
Academic Cooperation Association (ACA)
11
Ligia Deca
Bologna Secretariat
12
Louise Simpson
The Knowledge Partnership, UK
13
Magalie Soenen
BFUG WG Transparency
14
Mariann Lugus
Estonian Ministry of Education and Research
Welcome and opening
Mr. Hubert Dürrstein opened the meeting, greeted the participants and started an introductory tour de
table. The participants of the meeting briefly introduced themselves, indicating the country /
organisation they represent.
1
Adoption of the agenda
The agenda of the meeting was adopted.
Prof. Hubert Dürrstein gave a short overview of the OeAD and its activities. He presented the key
aspects to be considered as starting points for the meeting, underlining the aim of finding solution for
marketing and promotion of the European Higher Education Area, stating that for being competitive and
attractive one needs to have adequate activities of marketing including elaborated information
(provider side) and specific promotion schemes (user side). In addition he added that a common
understanding of promotion related to the specific marketplace education and research has to build up.
An Introduction to the IPN – Putting the Experts Round Table in Context
Ligia Deca gave a short overview of the IPN and presented the IPN background buildup, underlining the
status quo of the network and how it developed to the actual structure, as well as the past activities of
the network. She further presented each sub-WG task according to the IPN work-plan and the Term of
Reference. The presentation also looked at the possible steps that could be taken further:
1. Discuss and possibly reshape the IPN Work-plan, with a focus on the IPN “deliverables” for the
2012 Bucharest Ministerial Conference;
2. Schedule the 2nd IPN meeting to endorse the IPN Work-plan and present the results of the work
conducted so far;
3. Clarify the IPN sub-structures division and increase participation in the work being conducted
by the sub-WG Chairs;
4. Clarify the cooperation between the IPN and the IO WG, with a focus on organizing “a round
table (with the participation of the European Commission and other main actors in higher
education promotion in Europe) to devise a “road map” and to identify opportunities and
actions for enhancing European-level promotion”;
5. Plan the drafting of the IPN report to be delivered to the Krakow BFUG meeting in October
2011, as requested by the BFUG and agreed within the IPN Steering Committee.
Ms. Birgit Galler (Germany) drew the attention to the aspect of merging all 3 IPN sub-WGs, pointing out
that the people involved in sub WG 1 and sub-WG 3 are relatively identical; also adding that there is
little interest for being part of the sub-WG 2. She further suggested that merging the 3 sub-WG might
be a practical decision.
The Bologna Secretariat clarified that when IPN was created, its work plan was based on what different
IPN members offered to contribute with. Taking in consideration that it seemed difficult to deal with all
47 countries representatives and the organizations at once, the IPN was divided in small sub-working
groups. Currently, merging the three sub-working groups looks like a sensible solution.
2
Ms. Barbara Weitgruber (Austria) added that in the beginning it was important to have different subWGs in order to increase participation; however at this point merging all the sub-WGs might be helpful.
Based on her IO WG chairing experience, she further underlined the need to find proper mechanisms to
get more people involved and try to make them somehow accountable for their work.
Ms. Heli Aru (Estonia) added that keeping all 3 sub-WG separated at this point does not seem like a
pragmatic approach for taking on the IPN work-plan.
The Bologna Secretariat pointed out that the aspects of legitimacy for engaging in further actions is
doubtful due to the lack of feedback to the working documents. Perhaps the second IPN meeting in the
beginning of March in which the members can discuss face to face could be very useful in this respect.
Prof. Hubert Dürrstein (OeAD) concluded that merging the 3 IPN sub-WGs seems like one of the further
steps for reshaping IPN, also identifying some specific input for the higher education marketplace and
integrating expert knowledge in this respect at the next IPN meeting in March.
Definitions and state of play
David Baldinger (OeAD) presented the state of play for the IPN and the evolution of definitions for key
terms, underlining that one of the main problematic aspects identified in tackling the information and
promotion topic is the lack of a common understanding of the terminology used in this area. He further
introduced definitions, which have been designed in October 2010 for IPN purposes. Based on entried in
relevant encyclopedia these suggestions have been sent to IPN members and were then briefly
summarized:
1. Information focuses on the provision of ‘unspinned’, neutral, objective facts or data in a manner
appropriate for the purposes of the petitioner;
2. Referring to the process of developing a market for goods and services, marketing is based on
market research and a thorough understanding of consumers and customers and seeks to
establish an appropriate marketing mix in a bid to satisfy organizational goals;
3. Promotion depicts all means of conveying the message about a product or service to potential
customers, it aims to increase the perceived importance or reputation of a product or service,
informing individuals with the determined purpose of convincing of a particular (or overall)
advantage within the features of the product or service.
The presentation furthermore introduced a summary of recent Bologna studies and reports and their
findings on promotion and the international dimension in general. These reports included the
Independent Assessment of the Bologna Process, the EUA Trends 2010 and ESU’s Bologna at the Finish
Line. In total the reports painted a rather bleak picture on overarching EHEA promotion activities and
the perception of the EHEA as an attractive study destination for global students. By and large there is
no perception of the EHEA as students consider individual countries yet tend to neglect the European
area. What is more they often do not realize that consistent study systems have been developed. Thus
3
the EHEA looms on the brink of virtual non-existence in the minds of one of its key target groups.
Additionally, the contribution underlined the main key points of the IPN survey questionnaire in this
respect, stating that:
1. the promotion process differs from university to university
2. HEIs usually market themselves - not the EHEA - unless it’s helpful in very specific contexts
3. Unless there are special funds for it, they do not usually focus on the European dimension as a
marketing feature
4. Most European national HE marketing departments say they would promote Europe as a brand
if money was available from the EU
Presentation of survey and results of DAAD questionnaire - Overview of existing European Higher
Education Area promotion and marketing activities
Dr. Irene Jansen (DAAD, Germany) started the presentation with a short overview of the
internationalization related objectives set by the EU2020 strategy, underlining mobility as core tool in
achieving this. She further presented the IPN survey main conclusion, to which 36 of 47 EHEA countries
have answered (the full overview being included in the power-point presentation):

Main focus countries for promotion: China, India and the U.S.A.

Regional Marketing plays a very important role, but some countries focus on the entire globe
(UK).

In terms of methods, there are several preferred methods: fairs, website marketing, social web,
brochures, and personal contacts are widely used.

In terms of parameters promoted: quality of education and reputation of HEIs as main drivers,
although the studies based on student perception (DAAD`s International Student Barometer)
rather point to location and costs of study and living as main criteria for choosing a particular
HEI or country over another.

Most countries say that their HEIs participate in European HE fairs, and a lot of them said they
have participated as part of a consortium.

Marketing on a European level is less present in the offer of training courses than marketing in a
national context.
4

The most used marketing tools (in hierarchical order): leaflets and brochures, fairs and road
shows, websites and university directories.

HEIs usually market themselves, not the EHEA, unless it’s helpful in very specific contexts. They
also mentioned that unless there are special funds for it, they do not usually focus on the
European dimension as a marketing feature.

EU funded cooperation is being pursued by many, but to very different extent.

In Japan, European HE fairs are expanding as well as for Taiwan and Hong Kong. DAAD
appreciated that the European Union is funding some of these initiatives, but a general strategy
is lacking.

Most European national HE marketing departments say they would promote Europe as a brand
if money was available from the EU.

The type of information seen as helpful by the respondents is quite different, as the
presentation showed: from recognition to available funds and from national system information
to no information at all due to its very short lifespan.
The presentation concluded on some important findings, underlining that:
- for most participants “promotion”, “information” and “marketing” seem closely related in terms
of their meaning.
- Yes, there is international marketing of higher education institutions (HEI) in the EHEA.
- Yes, all state-of–the-art marketing and information tools are being used (more or less widely).
- Yes, there is a pronounced regional bias in favour of Asia and the USA, but not in each country.
- There are marketing activities encouraged, partly financed by the EU.
- Yes, there is marketing for EHEA at fairs, for Erasmus Mundus and other EU programs.
- No, there is no explicit marketing for EHEA unless there are European funds to do so.
Dr. Jansen then concluded on the question of what message and aims do we as part of IPN have, raising
the following open questions:
 Should we set up a task force to write a promotion strategy, based on common ground (that
needs to be agreed upon)?
 Should we engage in market research and systematically look into the potential of individual
countries and / or regions?
 Should we organize a series of conferences to tackle the „hot topics“and serious political
questions mentioned in the presentation?
 Should we aim at a new format for EHEA-Exchange-Fairs and staff exchange programs?
5

Should we design and organize training and competence building seminars for promoting EHEA?
Prof. Hubert Dürrstein agreed with the aspect of WHAT should we really promote as a key challenge.
Louise Simpson drew attention to the fact that in order to answer this question we first have to clarify
WHY we want to promote Higher Education. There are numerous reasons for promotion the EHEA;
however the focus should be narrowed. She further added that inevitably there are competitive aspects
when marketing national higher education systems. In this respect we have to be professional and
focused on what we want to achieve (e.g. all universities are competing for students).
Dr. Irene Jansen argued that when promoting the EHEA the approach should be more focused on
partnership. Louise Simpson pointed out that partnership is important for universities but not a task that
falls under the function of marketing, which usually involves competing for audience share. International
students are a very competitive market and other continental areas are very focused on getting their
share to improve their economies. Again, it comes back to what EHEA is tasked to achieve – is it about
attracting students to Europe (marketing), or is it about establishing links with other universities
(partnerships), or both? This is not clear.
Ms. Alexandra Gallerano (EMA) proposed that there should be two approaches in building up a strategy
for promotion and information on the EHEA. One focused to attract international students, and the
other focused more on competing with continental educational systems – promoting the EHEA model.
Heli Aru pointed out that there are no right and wrong perspectives. As shown from the IPN survey
analysis, the partnership approach might not be the only solution for promotion, as this might not be
needed for all universities. Equally, we need to further research the added value of the EHEA in the
context of promotion and whether the EHEA as a whole can be promoted.
David Baldinger pointed out that policy papers, such as the 2007 Strategy and the 2009 Report clearly
state that students, teachers and researchers across the world should be targeted.
The Bologna Secretariat agreed and reiterated that in terms of attractiveness within the EHEA, the
background documents refer to attracting students and the academic staff, as well as researchers and
making higher education institutions more attractive. It`s about EHEA attractiveness in general, not only
about attracting some target groups.
Barbara Weitgruber (Austria) mentioned that for universities the target group differs on their missions
and institutional strategies. An EHEA promotion strategy, as stated in the politically endorsed
background papers, should be viewed as a complementary aspect of their own strategies. In this respect
the EHEA promotion plan could be a very general meta-strategy to be adopted by the BFUG.
Louise Simpson mentioned that for writing a promotion strategy specific objectives need to be set out
before you can decide what to do.
6
Mariann Lugus (Estonia) added that “Study in Europe” is a good example for an information and
promotion programme for the European educational offer. She further underlined that Europe is very
diverse place, and we should try do not dilute this perception. If “Study in Europe” is clear for different
study opportunities we should further invest in only one programme for promoting the EHEA. Maybe
reshape “Study in Europe” for the EHEA scope.
Irina Lungu (ACA) intervened, adding that the funding aspect is an overall problem in supporting these
kind of projects, as EU funding is usually given for starting a project that has to become self-sustainable.
Barbara Weitgruber (Austria) mentioned that the IO WG contributed to the buildup of the “Study in
Europe” web page, together with the Bologna Secretariat, as well as to the strategy and documents of
the programme. We could use this information in shaping a similar initiative.
Louise Simpson pointed out that the “Study in Europe” programme is a general information initiative
focused on continental competition between educational systems, while also being a general promotion
programme targeted on masters and PhD students. She suggested further that we need to focus on a
narrower path. Nevertheless, a parallel programme might be a huge effort and quite a financial extraeffort. Dr. Irene Jansen underlined that “Study in Europe” is limited in terms of the educational offer, as
well as with regard to the possible objectives of promotion.
Louise Simpson further introduced a presentation entitled “Marketing the European Higher Education
Area”, developing the concepts of strategic marketing, goal setting, information, communication
management, promotion as well as giving an overview of the trends in international higher education
marketing, the global promotion project-Study in Europe and in the end underlining the possibility of
marketing the EHEA. The presentation concluded on several key strategic and tactical questions such as:
Strategic Questions
1. What are we trying to communicate? And why? And by when? (in order of priority)
2. How will we measure success/and by when?
3. What countries and people do we want to communicate with about the EHEA? (put in order of
priority)
4. What are they key messages about EHEA?
5. And/or key informational needs?
Tactical Questions
1. How are you going to get all 47 countries represented and aware and agreed to the strategy?
2. Have we got the right team and budget in place to action the strategy smoothly?
3. Have we got enough research to establish your year one baseline?
7
4. What are the main tasks for year one and who will do?
A full overview is included in the presentation.
The Bologna Secretariat added an explanatory note on how the BFUG conducts its activities, underlining
that the Bologna Process is an inter-governmental voluntary initiative and the decision within the BFUG
and its Board are usually consensus based. Furthermore, the discussion on the topic of promotion has
never been clarified. This is why the strategy adopted by the Ministers in 2007 has a rather vague
explanation of what is meant with promotion in the EHEA.
Eva Egron Polak (IAU) drew the attention upon the first question that needs to be answered before all is
WHY we need to promote the EHEA. Louise agreed that the WHY question needs to be unlocked, after
that it is necessary to have a professional approach, taking the process to a next phase and invest
accordingly. Eva further raised the question of having the same campaign for Europe and outside
Europe. Louise answered that there is no clarity with regard to the real attractiveness of Europe as an
overarching education space. She argued that the ERT should have a bold attitude and give a proper
meaning to what attractiveness stands for,as well as how can it be achieved . The definition needs to be
one that is agreed and understood by all the representatives of Bologna, but communications and
marketing experts should be involved in the discussions.
Dr. Irene Jansen stated that the solution for marketing the EHEA should be part of an internal dialog. We
have to maintain the internal political dialog as well as finding out what`s the purpose of our endeavor.
In addition, one asset of the EHEA is struggling for the challenges that the educational systems have to
be able to cope with. She further added that cooperation is not a priority for national agencies since
their market is shared and a competition in this sense is very visible.
Brigit Galler drew attention to the fact that we need to keep in mind the Bologna Process specifics,
supporting the Bologna Secretariat’s early intervention. She added that it would be very interesting to
have an expert on marketing explaining to the BFUG these aspects of information and promotion, like
Louise did today. She agreed that the marketing terminology is a heavy term; nevertheless, we could try
to have a pragmatic approach underlining that the “Study in Europe” site could be a tool in the process
of promoting EHEA, however investing in this project might mislead the public in believing that the EHEA
is an EU achievement.
Brigit further mentioned that the common perception is that the Bologna Process is very linked with the
EU Commission in ownership terms, which is not true. A more pragmatic approach could be by focusing
on information and promotion for the European dimensions which has to be defined. She underlined
the need to propose solutions for the BFUG in the shape of concrete measures to be taken.
Louise explained that the achievement of Bologna Process is not very clear, encouraging the finding of
the attractive aspects of this process.
8
The Bologna Secretariat explained the core policy area of the “EHEA in a Global Setting” 2007 strategy
(improving information on the EHEA, promoting European Higher Education to enhance its world-wide
attractiveness and competitiveness, strengthening cooperation based on partnership, intensifying policy
dialogue, further recognition of qualifications) adding that for those initiatives several measures have
already been taken. She suggested that the ERT should propose possible steps further and the budget
for future actions.
Eva Egron-Polak (IAU) proposed to unlock the reason behind the process of promotion the EHEA, adding
that after figuring that out and it would be much easier to further put forward a solid proposal. She
mentioned that it`s dangerous to have a direct-aggressive approach. It would be a good idea to find the
tactical ways for leading the BFUG to take actual actions for marketing.
Louise Simpson suggested that there needs to be a marketing strategy and be very forward in the
approach as providing the real story for the European Higher Education, adding that strong
communication campaign needs to be implemented.
David Baldinger suggested several specific actions in order to make the IPN more productive,
mentioning that reducing the number of tasks or renegotiating the TOR with the IO WG might be
feasible approaches. Also he agreed with Barbara Weigruber`s perspective of a meta-promotion plan,
which allows for the embedding and enhancing of individual national strategies.
The Bologna Secretariat explained that the EHEA web page was until now a temporary site maintained
by each Bologna Secretariat. The new website is a permanent one and since it is newly set up, the
results when searching for it on Google are not very high up. There is also no financial support for having
it on Google`s first search results, stating that the web page is an information tool for policy makers, at
the request of the BFUG. Ms. Deca also agreed on the answering the “why?” and “what?” questions.
It was also underlined that it is very difficult to generally address the achievements of the Bologna
process, as these differ for each member of the process, mentioning that identifying what is the added
value of the Bologna Process might be a more correct approach.
Heli Aru agreed that the strategic and tactical questions presented by Louise are indeed the core
questions needed to be answered. She further added that it might be a good idea to have a seminar
with the decision makers and present the information delivered here, stating that the consequence
might be very dangerous, however a bold approach could be the best idea for further proceed in
information and promotion.
Louise Simpson proposed as one of the outcomes of this meeting the preparation of a paper regarding
the strategic and tactical questions, presented in the end of Louise`s presentation, and forwarding it to
the BFUG, as this might be a safe and also practical approach.
9
Eva Egron Polak underlined the need to identify the type of audience that the process of promotion
addresses, adding that the values of what Bologna Process means as a system of education need to be
identified as well.
Prof. Hubert Dürrstein suggested that we need an agreement at the political level of what should be
done in the future, also making proper recommendations for the BFUG for the immediate future. He
added that we cannot present an elaborated concept for promotion during the next years, without the
political support for it.
In light of the slow-moving debate David Baldinger proposed to trim down and redefine the tasks of the
IPN, critically bearing in mind the potential and the limitations inherent in the composition of the
current group. It is important not to overload the group with tasks and expectations beyond its capacity
and expertise.
Coffee break
The Bologna Secretariat suggested as a further step to propose a communication for the next BFUG
meeting in the form of an accessible paper with the issues raised by Louise with possible answers, as
well as with the results of the IPN survey conducted by DAAD. A training for the IPN members might be
useful, in order to start with a similar information level on the topic. It was proposed that the two
papers to be drafted by Irene Jansen, Louise Simpson and the Bologna Secretariat and afterwards sent
to feedback to all members.
The Bologna Secretariat also announced that the next IPN meeting will be held in Brussels, on 9th or 11th
of March, the exact date to be discussed with the IPN Steering Committee. Dr. Irene Jansen mentioned
that she will nominate a person on behalf of DAAD for the meeting. The two papers will be circulated
on the 1st of March to the IPN members, at the latest. Furthermore, all related documents will be sent
along with the minutes of the sub-WG1 meeting in Bonn and the ERT..
Dr. Irene Jansen suggested that if the marketing question comes up, one feasible solution is to have an
EHEA marketing group steered by the BFUG, adding that the marketing group could be formed from the
universities marketing directors, since the “product” is too delicate to consider a potential outsourcing
process.
The Bologna Secretariat underlined that the consolidation of a new group would most likely need an
EHEA Ministerial endorsement, meaning that national marketing agencies would have to get together
and work on obtaining a common EHEA grant, even then funding would be a delicate issue as well as the
aspect of political commitment to sustain the group. It was further proposed that the papers coming
from DAAD and Louise Simpson would be circulated for comments to the ERT participants in mid
February.
Eva Egron-Polak suggested that the “Study in Europe” website could be a starting point as a further tool
to implement the measures identified by and for the IPN through the paper. She mentioned that if the
10
future actions are not resourced properly it would harm the efforts done so far in the field of
information and promotion.
The Bologna Secretariat suggested that it`s still possible to organize a round table, as it is assumed in the
IO WG ToR, but it would have to probably be attached to another event, in consultation of European
Commission. This should be addressed in the IO WG meeting of 18 January as well.
Prof. Hubert Dürrstein, as an official host on behalf of OeAD and as Chair of the meeting, thanked the
ERT participants and wished that the papers stemming from the meeting’s discussion would help in
advancing the information and promotion work that is the IPN task.
End of the meeting.
11